There’s not a lot we can be certain of these days—except that Benjamin Netanyahu had a very good weekend. And that Iran will retaliate for the American attack.
I would have said Israelis are probably pleased with what the U.S. did—except they’re too busy sprinting to bomb shelters every few hours.
The one thing we can say with certainty is that the situation is far less certain than it was just a few days ago. Wars, by their nature, are unpredictable and have an escalatory momentum. As the old adage goes: easy to start, hard to stop. That’s why diplomacy is always preferable. It offers something war never can: predictability. As long as opposing sides are engaged in negotiations, the process is structured and the outcomes measurable.
Am I glad that Israel and the U.S. have degraded Iran’s capacity to threaten the region? Of course. It’s like the high you get from your favourite gelato. But let’s not hang up the “Mission Accomplished” banner just yet. For one, there are still hostages held by Hamas in Gaza—easy to forget them when the news cycle moves this fast. And I believe the world is far more dangerous today than it was last week.
As I’ve argued before: until there’s a change in the terrorist regime in Iran, any achievement from an air campaign will be short-lived.
And then there’s trump.
Let’s stop pretending he gave any serious thought to this. He didn’t. He’s not capable of strategic planning. His approach can be summed up in one phrase: “I’ll show them I’m not a TACO” (Trump Always Chickens Out—for those who haven’t been following the shorthand). His personal ties to Bibi Netanyahu, Mohammed bin Salman, and the other gift-giving Gulf royals likely played a role. That’s about all you need to know.
So let’s look at the wider implications of trump’s decision:
1. The collapse of U.S. diplomatic credibility.
Secretary of State Rubio said the U.S. had nothing to do with Israel’s attack—a lie. A 6th round of negotiations with Iran was supposedly on the calendar—another lie. After the U.S. strike, Secretary of Defense Hegseth insisted this wasn’t about regime change—yet trump tweeted about wanting Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” then hinted at regime change. The result? Diplomatic credibility in ruins. Whatever legitimacy this administration had—if any—it has squandered in just six months.
2. The nuclear danger has grown.
We don’t know, and likely never will, how damaged Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities truly are without inspectors on the ground. That’s not going to happen anytime soon. The Iranians had over a week’s notice to hide or move fissile material, especially from Fordow. If they now withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and expel IAEA inspectors—as seems likely—there will be no verifiable oversight left. Their path forward is obvious: race for a nuclear deterrent. The diplomacy that restrained that ambition is now dead.
3. International law is in shambles.
All the pearl-clutching over whether these attacks were “legal” is sad to watch. It’s not that legality doesn’t matter—it’s that it’s now a joke. Watching the Iranian representative at the UN Security Council cite the Charter’s sovereignty clauses, you could almost forget Iran is itself a serial violator of those very norms. It was stomach-turning theater. The UN has failed—again—and its prestige has taken another serious blow. Iran should have been expelled from the UN as a state sponsor of terrorism long ago.
4. Are we closer to regime change, or even regime modification, in Iran?
This is the only question that matters. And the answer is: no. In fact, we’re further away than ever. And if the regime survives this, it will emerge more determined to secure a nuclear deterrent—its only insurance policy against future attacks.
So enjoy your gelato while it lasts. Because the sugar rush won’t.
2 comments:
Regime change - but to what regime? - is the one way that Iran will change its course. I do believe that the mullahs’ power is receding, and quickly now. The Iranians not stuck in traffic jams fleeing Tehran and other cities are the ones who can truly affect this. It will, I fear, be bloody when they do it. Khameini’s second and third in command are dropping as fast as they are appointed: their jobs are time-limited. Yes, diplomacy is always the better solution, when you have two parties negotiating in good faith. Iran used negotiations as a stalling tactic to build up their nuclear arsenal which is in the process of being eradicated. The U.N. is finally facing its cowardice at not going the right thing: expelling a solid terrorist state, but many countries and people will pay the price. As for trump and his next steps: we can only pray for the best.
Of course, I mean to a less theocratic or at least more rational regime, which is very doubtful. Obviously I'm not hoping for something more radical. Actually, I think one can determine that it's the US that has been in bad faith. Iran was adhering to the JCPOA, until trump withdrew from it. That deal allowed uranium enrichment to 3%. After trump withdrew, Iran rushed to enrich up to 60%. At the very least, the JCPOA would have ensured a framework for verification. IAEA inspectors would have alerted the world if something was amiss (which they in fact did). Now we have nothing. We have a world where might makes right, which is very dangerous. Even if the majority of the population hates the regimne, and they do, up to 80%, there is no reason to believe that the Iranian people have the wherewithal to fight the ruling IRGC. More likely is a military coup. Either way it ain't democracy.
Post a Comment